Well, he says that he thinks that NASA in unnecessary. One big reason for going to space, I think, is for a nation's national security. Just like a navy is needed to secure the oceans for a country, space also needs to be secure for a nation. But that should be run by the military, not a civilian agency.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

He actaully says research should be run by the research departments and space regulation run by the FAA etc. This doesn't mean no national space agency, just breaking Nasa into several agencies.

But then who would be the customer giving all that free tech and money to the so called 'private' companies?

He claimed Mir as the first private space station. As if it had no government underpinnings. Private effort did not build Mir or Energia. The 'Competition' to Nasa is from other, better, national space agencies.

National Space agencies are not bad per se, but lately Nasa has been a bad example of one in a lot of areas, basically all the areas you think it should be in.

He advocates Nasa getting out of 'National Pride' roles. Thats basically their big problem. If Nasa wasn't working for 'national interests' then it wouldn't keep stepping on the private industry.

Anarchy only means that there's no official government running the country, and the greatest masses decides what's great and not. Anarchy is actually a form of democracy in my opinion (and many others). Anarchy is seldom "do what you please, with no concern for other people" as anarchy mostly is "do what you will, but don't remember other people" when discussed as a serious form of "government". Isn't that freedom? It is in my book.

Anarchy only means that there's no official government running the country, and the greatest masses decides what's great and not. Anarchy is actually a form of democracy in my opinion (and many others). Anarchy is seldom "do what you please, with no concern for other people" as anarchy mostly is "do what you will, but don't remember other people" when discussed as a serious form of "government". Isn't that freedom? It is in my book.

Anarchy is not do what you please. Anarchy is do whatever the guy with the biggest gun pleases. And Democracy is not the same thing as freedom. Issues regarding freedom should not be voted upon.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

Anarchy is not do what you please. Anarchy is do whatever the guy with the biggest gun pleases. And Democracy is not the same thing as freedom. Issues regarding freedom should not be voted upon.

You have stated that you know nothing about Somalia, yet you are claiming to be an authority on what is and isn't anarchy. You have no experience of anarchy and you obviously haven't read anything about it or it's connections with libertarianism. You are wrong, plain and simple, but you can't see that and you refuse to learn anything beyond what you already know.

You have stated that you know nothing about Somalia, yet you are claiming to be an authority on what is and isn't anarchy. You have no experience of anarchy and you obviously haven't read anything about it or it's connections with libertarianism. You are wrong, plain and simple, but you can't see that and you refuse to learn anything beyond what you already know.